he could have told.. yeah i did the order to use explosives to take down building7... then people will say.. he really means.. this or that. will not have made much diference , most americans are trained to think exactly the way their goverment wants. . people don't question anything. if they do they call it conspirators. hard evidence means nothing there.. we will see sometime in future an american revolution once people get tired there of the corruption n the way their money is invested.
for the "patriots" outhere.. who like to debunk any conspirator and remain skeptic of 911.
watch Ted Gunderson videos.. on youtube..former FBI chief.. says not only 911 was inside job..but most terrorist atacks done againts americas. incredible but true. No investigation ever in 911 or any other attacks will get any credible results as long the people in power continues in their jobs positions.. The president is not the real power there..
Try typing "Pull It",not "pull" numb skull that's the term they use.I don't know anything about controlled Demo, but I've heard the term from documentaries about that profession.I don't believe that WTC1 and 2 were brought down by Controlled Demo....WTC 7 ???
"Even if "pull" were industry slang for demolition, there would be no reason to expect Silverstein to know this" .....Unless he was informed on how to bring it down.
all the 'truther' videos are the same: first they show you some examples of controlled demolition, then they show the falling of building 7. so what they do is to 'train' your brain in recognizing the similarities between those videos, that's just plain old NLP. look at what is really happening! unbiased and with an open mind.
the 'pulling' only refers to the taking down of building 6 btw.
building 6 was hollowed out with the deepest depression out of all the WTC towers. A top view of the WTC shows a deep black hole where a building should be. The outer shell remained standing or 4 steel buildings would have "fell"?!. Who was in building 6 anyway and where are they today?
funny how the only 3 steel framed buildings to ever collapse due to fire were owned or leased by silverstein and people still dismiss why there were molten metal under all 3 of the towers for weeks after 911
1. To demolish; destroy: pull down an old office building.
from: diclib.com Collins COBUILD Advanced Learner's English Dictionary 4th edition: To pull down a building or statue means to deliberately destroy it.
from: websters-online-dictionaryDOTorg pull: 4: [Verb] To demolish; to subvert; to destroy. In political affairs, as well as mechanical. from princetonDOTedu# tear down so as to make flat with the ground.
If i was being accuse of murdering 20 ppl in a strip club with a AK47, and i can prove my innocents byjut showing video surveillance footage of me being in a fast food store... That'd be the FIRST thing i will do, show that footage to proove my innocents...and that will show that im not guilty and thats the end of that.
The fact that they hold back such VITAL evidence is just one of the things that fuels the 911Truth movement. ALL the Governmennt have to do is show that ONE piece of evidence!!!
One of them main evidence is the surveillance tapes around the pentagon which shows the plane crashing into the pentagon. If the US government wanted to end all these theories alltogether within a matter of minutes, all they have to do is show ONE of the tapes they siezed on 911. That will blow the 911 truthers movement right outa the water as well as provin the US governments innocents..Its been 9 years and they still havnt, all it takes is 20 secs of video footage..what have they got to hide?
Fires and debris simply do not collapse structures like Tower 7. It fell with ZERO resistance and perfectly into its own motherfucking footprint!!! It fell like this because of a few office fires and a hole in the SW corner a few stories up?...
DO THESE PEOPLE THINK I AM FUCKING DOWN SYNDROMED?
@TyVulpine Interesting idea you've got there. Can you direct me to any more complete footage of the collapse? Also, I have never been able to acquire a good picture of the alleged hole in the SW corner. I'm very open minded an will admit I am wrong if I see something even remotely convincing that Tower 7 fell from the hole caused by the debris.
@AllahConsciousness I have a video shot by a news crew that shows very clearly that Building 7's SW corner WAS NOT caved in or fractured like many have said. The crew was on the ground after most of the people had left and just a couple hours before WTC 7 collapsed. It's the clearest video I've seen and because there are few people around, it allows you to see just what kind of shape the building was in. Strangely, alternating floors appear to have been blown out neatly while others remain.
@ConspiracyForTruth How dare you claim that there could be corrupt elite with the gaul to commit mass murder for money and power! You live in some alternate universe where the elite don't absolutely love us masses and want to provide us with hip Apple products to consume and really badass police state measures to protect us from brown people overseas who are jealous of our super sexy lifestyle! You are one hell of a big-foot hunting conspiratorial moran sir...
He might have meant the workmen had to be careful they didnt burn their boots or feet on the intensely hot metal they all reported there for weeks afterwards.
0:16- 0:29 why did he have to be careful? why not just fly another plane into building 6 to bring it down onto it's footprint? worked wonders for two 100+ storey buildings... 3rd times a charm.
It takes weeks to place explosives at the correct point to make a building (planned for demolition) to be brought down into itself. Was this just a fluke that on 9/11 they were planning to "pull it" bring down this OTHER building?
It is TOO much to believe that this happened on the same day without having a plane hit it?!
CONTROLLED DEMOLITION brought down WTCs as it was just too perfect in the way they imploded into the dust!
What is more than quite hilarious is the shit that is spewed by moron CTists on Youtube. You want to try to spew your shit on a real forum, google JREF and come onto the conspiracy theory forum there. Bring your best shit, you will need it.
How is it that I am a conspiracy theorist and you are not? Do you know what a conspiracy is? You have a theory which involves a conspiracy in the plot just like "CTists" as you call them.
Maybe this video will help you understand.
watch?v=3lwBUXCMdSc
And until your type starts debating with facts, instead of insults or labels that end any conversation, I don't have anything to say to you. Hopefully those forums aren't more of the same that you have shown here.
We have fact after fact after fact which are summarily dismissed by truthers. Now you know why we are a little pissed off. I for one am tired of the disinformation being spewed by truthers and will go out of my way to ensure the facts are straight about 9/11.
I don't recall dismissing any facts. But you continue to try and label people so you think I already did something when you don't know anything about me. So the discussion is over before it started, later.
he took the decision to 'pull' 'pull it' and then he said.. "And then we watched the building collapse" AND HE SAID THOSE WORDS ALL LINKED UP AND IN ONE SENTENCE! so..if i 'pulled' my toy building blocks and then watched them all collapse..that means...?? DUH! ITS A NO BRAINER! Dont listen to the people who want to play on words its OBVIOUS this guy is a criminal!
Larry Silverstein DIDN'T HAVE THE AUTHORITY to order that the building be demo'd for any reason. "Pull it" meant pull the firefighting operation, and let the building burn, because he didn't want to risk any more fire fighters. Seriously, how many died when Building Seven collapsed? NONE, right? Because they stopped, per the "pull it" order. But, somehow, you were in that room when he said it, and know EXACTLY what he meant, huh?
u r one dumb fuck dum ass - silverstein gave an interview and told the interviewer EXACTLEY the words i wrote above SO yeah u could say i was in the room! as were thousands of others who watched his interview -- the dumb fuck building came down on its own foot print in a matter of seconds so go take your dumb ass replies to somewhere else cos everyone intelligent KNOWS [ apart from your dumb ass] that it was an effing insurance scam as well as an INSIDE JOB - ASSHOLE!!!
*YAWN* Yet another IJCT dumbass idiot that has ZERO proof to back up his/her big mouth. Still waiting for that irrefutable proof that you IJCTs seem to have but refuse to show. Oh, wait. That's right. IT GOT DEBUNKED JUST LIKE ALL YOUR CLAIMS!
Oh, yeah THAT was real mature and a real good comeback. I'd believe and respect the IJCTs viewpoints and claims, IF THEY'D ACTUALLY BACK UP THEIR CLAIMS WITH REAL EVIDENCE, but so far, NOT ONE here on YouTube has. They'd rather bash/insult skeptics or beat about the bush about giving their evidence. Don't bother replying unless you have actual evidence to back up your big mouth, not lame insults.
Next lame excuse, please. Or maybe actually present some evidence? Nah, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for an IJCT to actually present any REAL evidence. They prefer to just throw out THEORIES, but prefer to NEVER actually try to prove them.
@TyVulpine "But, somehow, you were in that room when he said it, and know EXACTLY what he meant, huh?"
How you feel this wouldn't apply directly to you as well as entirely beyond me.
I am afraid of people who try so hard to debunk something that has left the world with so many questions. I can see the passion in wondering if something was an inside job, but the passion in debunking investigations?
@dopplesoldners I know conspiracy theorists hate FACTS, but Silverman did NOT have the AUTHORITY to have the buildings demo'd, which is something CTs ignore because it conflicts with their "pull it" claims plus Silverman was referring to the firefighting operation. The NYFD just lost several hundred members when Towers 1 and 2 collapsed. He didn't want to risk anymore with Building 7.
"Debunkers attempted to claim that Silverstein meant to pull the firefighters from the building due to the danger the structure was in, and this explanation was also later claimed by Silversteins spokesman, however, both the FEMA report, the New York Times and even Popular Mechanics reported that there were no firefighting actions taken inside WTC 7."
@dopplesoldners Call up the NYFD and ask if there were any firefighters in Building 7 on 9/11. I'm sure you'd be surprised at the "yes" you'll get in response. And I'm decline to believe an anonymous faceless person hiding behind a computer screen. Especially a conspiracy theorist as all never actually show evidence to support an inside job.
@TyVulpine Yeah, I'd be surprised that people who knew of the controlled demolition beforehand would lie about it afterward. Are you fucking kidding me?
The zionist owned popular mechanics won't even admit to what you are admitting. You are worse than the illuminati itself. You are the useful idiot your government loves.
And, for about the tenth time on this video, you need to be reminded that the 9/11 "official story" is, by definition, a conspiracy theory.
Considering you haven't given a SINGLE shred of evidence that HASN'T already been debunked (and even Loose Change was redone because of inaccuracies and things in the movie were debunked), I highly doubt that.
The people you work for wont save you. They are killing your children and family too. If you follow orders that are illegal you are an accessory. You should wise up and tell your meathead bosses you wont stand for it.
I'd love for just ONE person to irrefutably give proof that Silverstein meant to demo Building 7. All the "Inside Job Conspiracy Theorists" CLAIM that's what he meant, yet they WEREN'T there when he said it, so how could they know what he meant? Besides, Silverstein did NOT have the authority to order the building to be imploded.
My own two eyes tell me that there is no credible evidence to support a demo theory. My eyes tell me that I did not see any blasting caps or detonation wires in the rubble that would indicate a demo. My eyes tell me that the canines used in the WTC search/rescue did not respond to any aroma that explosives would have left. If there was a demo, where did the blasting caps/detonation wires go? All those people/firefighters around, and NO ONE saw any wires/caps? My eyes tell me all I need to know.
Oh no? How about there being credible evidence to suggest that the demo theory is a possibility? Like, building 7's almost free-fall and almost symmetrical fall, like many structural engineers who have come out specifically with regard to building 7 (let's just talk about building 7 for now, OK?), like reports in France that building 7 collapsed BEFORE it actually collapsed? What's also suspicious is that the 9/11 commission didn't even examine what happened with that building. Come on, Ty.
"Oh, no! It LOOKS like the building was demo'd and because it does, I refuse to accept any other possibility, even though absolutely NO evidence whatsoever was found by the construction crews removing the rubble!"
Molten metal was found at the bottom of WTC 1, 2, and 7, which is evidence of thermite, an agent used in detonations. Structural engineers have come forward on this as well. You may be interested in what Stephen Jones has to say (he's on YouTube), who provides evidence that at least suggests a more detailed investigation into what happened that day is needed. But, no, you are not going to check it out. I can tell, because you are trying to remain a smart ass on the subject.
Simply finding molten metal is NOT concrete proof of thermite. Where is the thermite itself? Oh, right. NONE was found. Not enough to conclusively support the demo theory, anyway.
Well, so far, you've done everything BUT help your case that 9/11 was an inside job. And saying "I can tell" is inane. How can you look through your computer monitor and tell anything about someone you can't see? Yet another example of an IJCT throwing logic out the window.
Uh, no. I have a right to post my opinion, and if you don't agree with it, tough. And insulting people is NOT to convince them of your opinion. This is just another usual tactic that I've seen Inside Job Conspiracy Theorists use. "If I can't convince them with my lack of evidence, I'll insult them and curse at them. Yeah, that'll convince them!" [/sarcasm]
I've sited three major pieces of evidence and referred you to Dr. Stephen Jones. There are tons of evidence out there and to say there are none is a complete lie. You are well deserving of insults, you dim-witted moron.
Good, keep showing everone your immaturity. Show everyone that you aren't worthing debating with, that you can't debate without having to resort to insults and curses. All you are doing is destroying your own credibility, and giving me a good laugh at your expense.
Watch Loose Change. Watch Terrorstorm. Watch 9/11 in Plane site. Watch Martial Law. Go to Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. Go to Scholars for 9/11 Truth. Look up what Morgan Reynolds had to day about 9/11. Look up what ex Italian president head to say. Jesse Ventura gives some interesting commentary on the subject as well. Lots and lots and lots of evidence. Faulty evidence? Perhaps, perhaps not, but to say there is no evidence is a load of crap. Now do your homework and stop blabbering.
Who's blabbering? Who's the one throwing lame insults and cussing? Who's the one destroying his own credibility because of said insults and cussing? Not me, not me, and again, not me. Funny, you tell me to go watch those videos, but again, you fail to provide any real proof YOURSELF that 9/11 was an inside job. Always point to everything else...
Here's what you say in your profile: "I am rather skeptical about 9/11 being an "inside job" so don't bother sending any Conspiracy Theory videos. I won't bother watching them, and will just block you." So that's how you go around saying there is no evidence. You refuse to watch the videos. And you are talking about my credibility being shot to hell.
Wow, talk about being clueless. I said no CONSPIRACY videos. Why do I refuse to watch those videos? Because they offer NO evidence. All CT videos do is ask questions, then it actually doesn't bother to try to answer them. All a CT video is is a "Why this? Why that? I'll raise questions, but I won't bother trying answer my own questions" load of BS. CT videos actually offer very little concrete proof, and are nothing more than the opinion of the producer.
How do you know they offer no evidence if you don't watch them? Jeez. There's no use talking to you, for you won't open your mind wide enough to understand where I am coming from. You need to watch Loose Change on Google video. If you don't, I'm not talking to you because you are just full of hot, empty air.
Loose Change has been debunked so many times, even the PRODUCER admits that it was wrong and has changed the movie no less than THREE times, but of course, that's something you seem to neglect to mention.
Mr. Pot, meet Mr. Kettle... You apparently just don't want to admit that you have FAILED to convince me. So, first you insult and cuss at me, then you try to use debunked films, and when that failed, you tried to blame me.
I've failed to convince you because you refuse to watch anything I suggest. Your mind is closed. I lost before the game ever started. Let me guess: you think the war in Iraq is a good thing, that Bush gives a rat's ass about "homeland security, and that this war has nothing to do with oil and everything to do with Al Qaeda.
Osama Bin Laden was a known CIA asset. Google "Tim Osmond". Then Google operation "Northwoods" - this documents similiar plans to instigate a war with cuba using remote control plans. Then google "Projoect for a new american century" a.k.a. "PNAC" which states that american needs a terrorist attack to cary out certain plans. BTW the authors of PNAC are dick cheney, Rumsfeld and a few other names you'll recognize.
man thats a really good come back, so it looks to me like you dont care what any ones says or tell u to research, you just beleive the government, do you think the Gov has ever lied?
I just think its mad that a fire brought it down, you see u can can do this experiment your self.. put a normal butter knife ion a fire and it wont melt, leave it there for hours and even use petrol to make the fire burn better, use wood and coal, and still you wont get that thin knife to melt. thats all im saying
I know the government lies, BUT I also know that the government isn't stupid enough to do something like 9/11. And yes, I *HAVE* done my research, and guess what? I didn't a single piece of evidence that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the government, or the fairy-tale Illuminati or anyone else besides al-Qaeda/bin Laden was behind the attacks, nor do I exactly see YOU giving any evidence. Like all typical IJCTs, you avoid actually doing so, because you HAVE NONE.
You see it was not structuraly unsound (WTC7) the firefighters still wanted to go in and fight the fires, but due to the UNCONTROLABLE (lol) fires they pulled their opperation and it remarkably fell. WOW! so it was not structuraly unsound to enter at all... merely burning uncontrolably (lol)
How many moron CTists have actually READ Silverstein's entire quote?? It's QUIZ TIME! According to Silverstein's quote, WHO made the decision to "pull it"?
1. He (Silverstein) did
2. The FDNY
Careful CTists, the answer is not what you were led to believe when you joined the lunatic CTist club!
well to be honest i dont think silverstein knew much about demolitions. When they say "pull it" it means just that. the building is pulled down with cables. Would be obvious if there were cables on bldg7. If silverstein was part of consp. He would not be trusted with rebuilding and would be in jail
THEY.. hey I win.. but anyways what you official story people like to ignore is the firefighters had NO ONE to rescue in building 7 (evacuation of the building started BEFORE the second tower was hit.)
They werent fighting the fires in WTC 7 they didnt have enough water mains.(a few were destroyed in the surrounding area). They called off firefighting missions by 1130..
The fire department never asks the property owner before they pull out. "Where having a bit of trouble down here Larry & even though you know nothing about fires, except that your going to make a fortune off your recently acquired insurance policy, would you like us to risk our lives or can we get out now""Oh OK, you can pull out now""Thanks Lazza, I'll just go tell the BBC that its collapsed, cause I'm sure it will by the end of the call":)
The Millenium Hilton Hotel just next to the Twin Towers remained standing. I don't see the logic behind the collapse of the WTC 7 Tower, unless its fall has been assisted by controlled destructive means.
areawtc is correct about what? WTC7 had a 20-story tall hole ripped into it, an unfought-fire for 7 hours, and was reported as "leaning, creaking and groaning" before it collapsed. Numerous on-site Fire Chiefs with decades of experience decided to pull their firefighters out because they thought it would collapse.
the first 10 floors of bldg 7were scooped of by the falling debris. Bldg7 was unique. The first 10 floors were empty since it staraddled a power station and hosed 10 diesel tanks. the lines were destroyed and the place burned on for over 6 hours before collapse and the firemen predicted it
I'm sure wtc 7 WAS hit by parts of the towers but it does not explain the fires. Other buildings in the area had much more damage than wtc 7 but had no fires. How could 7 be the only surrounding building with fire on limited floors and have complete structural failure in only 8 hrs? It was deliberately demolished by planted explosives.
Small fires cannot make a building collapse perfectly symmetrical in on itselt. The damage on the south wall would've also made the building topple toward the south..not straight down. Also fires do not create demolition squibs going from bottom to up on the right side of the building.
What makes you an expert PoetryHound? You only have a reference posted for a couple of your assertions. You should practice what you preach and back your stuff up too. Get off your soap box.
Several of the "hijackers" are still alive. And the presence of terrorists was known in mid-2000 but the White House specifically prevented the FBI agents on the case from pursuing them. You're one of the people that allowed Hitler to come to power, by not realizing what was going on until it was too late.
"the White House specifically prevented the FBI agents on the case from pursuing them."
That's incorrect. Looks like you're just going down the usual CTer list of baseless assertions & misinterpretations. By any chance, do you have ADD? Unable to focus on any one topic at a time?
gee how many John Smiths are out there? Or Mary Ann?
Or Michael Jordan. Names dont mean shit. Unless you have a name like Pixy McHead or something.
How many Muhammed Ali names are out there, or just Muhammed Husseins? Just because there are people out there with the same name as the hijackers doesnt mean its all fake.
watch?v=k3DRhwRN06I Are there any people in the demo industry willing to go on record saying that this was definitely or probably not deliberate demolition?
And communists burned down the Reichstagg, and Oswald was a lone shooter, and Israel didn't attack the USS Liberty, and FDR didn't let Pearl Harbor happen, and we didn't send the Lusitania into German waters on purpose, and we didn't stage the Gulf of Tonkin incident, and the FBI didn't give the terrorists the bomb in first wtc attack....
Even though it has all the characteristics of it? Like someone to blame it on without evidence, government secrecy, the inexplainable failure of NORAD, using it as an excuse to get into wars, and a commission that ignores significant evidence and unexplained occurrences.
"Even though it has all the characteristics of it?"
I has none of the characteristics except ones invented by conspiracy theorists. "Inexplainable failure of NORAD?" Why haven't you read the NORAD & FAA transcripts or the descriptions of the miscommunications? Which evidence did the 911 Commission ignore? (Remember that they were not engineers. FEMA & NIST handled engineering issues). You're right that 911 was indeed used as an excuse to get into war.
NORAD doesn't need the FAA for anything. It is standard to scramble fighters to check it out when a plane goes off course. The pentagon hit by a plane? The commission ignored building 7, and the eyewitness reports of explosions, and the reports of "engineers" going into the buildings before the attacks during a power-down which is unprecedented, the "hijackers" were not good pilots. Several members of the commission have come out saying that it was a whitewash.
That was reported by one guy, who also said the power-down was only in 1 of the towers & only in 1/2 of that one, & it only lasted 26 hours, not nearly enough time to rig a building for demolition.
"the "hijackers" were not good pilots."
Correct, but they could steer the planes into buildings.
"Several members of the commission have come out saying that it was a whitewash."
No they haven't. They complained of bad cooperation from the White House.
Max Cleland said that early on with respect to the noncooperation from the White House, & I agree with him. But that's very different from claiming there was a government "inside job" or exposives pre-planted in the towers. Cleland never said anything about that.
"the commission report is for blowing your nose on."
I think it didn't go far enough in detail on some things & didn't assign blame strongly enough. But it's a useful report in terms of identifying the miscommunications & lack of preparedness, & how to rectify them.
The BBC admitted they made a mistake. It was based on mistaken identity. And the people whose identities were stolen are still alive, the hijackers are not.
WhyAskQuestions, all of your questions are dishonest. I now know this. And I am going to be here forever to let everyone know about you and your wicked lies. You have shown yourself to be a lying scum. It has been proven that you are pure evil.
IP address of WhyAskQuestions 207.255.52.148 to turn over to law enforcement when the TRUTH of 9/11 comes out and we HUNT DOWN AND EXECUTE THE PERPETRATORS AND THE SHILLS INVOLVED IN THE COVERUP.
Too bad for you that sarcasm doesn't make you right. The CTers constantly claim there's tons of evidence of an "inside job" or the use of explosives, but they never present any. So what's the evidence? Not assertions. Not speculation. Not questions. Evidence.
poetry hound is likely hasbara. he sure knows a lot and mixes it up well, always with the same monotonous message: all is well and nothing happened. it is like revisionist history.
hello, I am an engineering student and I'm working on a building demolition project. Can u tell me where I can find similar videos to download. thx and great video by the way. RIP for the 9/11 victims. PEACE
Forget puting the fire out jus 'pull' it innit u twat larry silverstein!! u are all mass killers of your pple - sick cunts !!! and then covered it up. lies after lies and everyone is gona get caught out and bumed!!!
About half of the $861 million went to pay bondholders who held the original debt on the old WTC 7. The remaining amount went into rebuilding WTC 7 and it wasn't enough. NY City sold $400 million in Liberty Bonds to cover the rest. $7.2 is wrong. The max payout on WTC 1,2,5, & 6 is $4.6 billion, all of it (if it is ever collected) going toward the total rebuilding cost of $9 billion. Silverstein isn't profiting on the insurance.
PoetryHound, are you trying to decieve people? Maybe you weren't aware? He is expected to recieve $3.345 billion in Liberty Bonds for the rest of the complex. Which brings it to a total of around $9 billion he will recieve for the complex. He isn't losing money either. He is only rebuilding one skyscraper, not two.
The Liberty bonds aren't cash. They are a form of debt. He has to pay the bondholders back plus interest. He rebuilt WTC 7 and will be building 3 more buildings. He hasn't been able to fill up WTC 7 with tenants so that's lost revenue. He may end up okay, but there's no way 911 was an insurance scam.
There was no insurance scam. I've already explained that the insurance payouts have gone to rebuilding, not to Silverstin's "profit." So if you have evidence to the contrary, present it.
The comments have nothing to do with being "convenient." They have to do with being true. If you have counter-evidence that "pull" really is used in the demo industry to mean "blow up," then present it.
youtube com/watch?v=FNEoiOP76QQ, yes pull is the industry term.
The owners of the WTC were going to have to spend billions cleaning out the asbestos and restoring the buildings. The WTC complex is some of the most expensive real estate in the world, and now they don't have to pay for the removal of the old buildings, and the insurance pays for the new ones.
Indeed, but it is an industry term for literally pulling a structure over with steel cables, not blowing it up.
Asbestos was only installed up to the 38th floor in WTC 1. Much of it was later removed and the rest was sealed. So there was no problem or cost. Meanwhile, no asbestos was installed in WTC 2, so how could that have been a motivation for destroying that building? Makes no sense.
He wasn't. Since "pull" in demolition parlance refers to the use of cables, and since no cables were used on WTC 7, then we know Silverstein was not using "pull" in demo parlance. There are some other definitions of "pull," you know.
So "maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it" means what? "They made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse" means what?
A building cannot fall as if there nothing stopping it, unless nothing is holding it up. How many eyewitnesses, firefighters, employees in the towers need to say "there were bombs going off?" Three buildings fall symmetrically due to fire, even though that's never happened ever before? NORAD stands down? 4 Hijackers vs. a plane full of people?
Let's look at Silverstein's full sentence. "We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it." Let's use some logic. Was Silverstein saying, "We've had such terrible loss of life that it would be wise to blow up my building," or was he saying, "We've had such terrible loss of life that it would be wise to withdraw firefighters to prevent further loss of life"? Now, which statement makes sense, and which is completely absurd?
Now let's look at the next part of the Silverstein quote. "They made the decision to pull." He doesn't say "I" made the decision or "We" made the decision. He says "They." Who is "they?" The FDNY? So if you really insist that "pull" means "blow up," then you're claiming they (the FDNY) made the decision to pull (blow up) WTC 7. If so, that would mean the FDNY is covering up a conspiracy that included the murder of 343 of their own men. And that's ridiculous.
Regardless of how au fait Silverstein may be with possible industry slang, what else could he have meant by "pull it".
I doubt he meant, "pull the firemen out" as there were no firemen in WTC7 when he had his supposed "pull it" conversation.
Great video here of Larry Silverstein being confronted with his own lies... watch?v=84doiQHJ5rQ
jhodgski 1 month ago
@jhodgski I'm with you bro. Also, no planes crashed into WTC 1 and 2. This was just CGI lies. Keep telling the message
jamesandrewhodgskiss 1 month ago
Everyone at the Sears Tower, get out while you still can. Larry owns the lease for that building too.
Check out this guy's channel. user/pullitlarry
zz911wasInsideJobzz 7 months ago
there is no debating this?.
.
The only thing not up for debate is you're cluelessness.
.
wooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
TheGameFather101 8 months ago
he could have told.. yeah i did the order to use explosives to take down building7... then people will say.. he really means.. this or that. will not have made much diference , most americans are trained to think exactly the way their goverment wants. . people don't question anything. if they do they call it conspirators. hard evidence means nothing there.. we will see sometime in future an american revolution once people get tired there of the corruption n the way their money is invested.
Vann7 9 months ago
for the "patriots" outhere.. who like to debunk any conspirator and remain skeptic of 911.
watch Ted Gunderson videos.. on youtube..former FBI chief.. says not only 911 was inside job..but most terrorist atacks done againts americas. incredible but true. No investigation ever in 911 or any other attacks will get any credible results as long the people in power continues in their jobs positions.. The president is not the real power there..
Vann7 9 months ago
Try typing "Pull It",not "pull" numb skull that's the term they use.I don't know anything about controlled Demo, but I've heard the term from documentaries about that profession.I don't believe that WTC1 and 2 were brought down by Controlled Demo....WTC 7 ???
"Even if "pull" were industry slang for demolition, there would be no reason to expect Silverstein to know this" .....Unless he was informed on how to bring it down.
Here's more crap America open wide.
210arty 11 months ago
all the 'truther' videos are the same: first they show you some examples of controlled demolition, then they show the falling of building 7. so what they do is to 'train' your brain in recognizing the similarities between those videos, that's just plain old NLP. look at what is really happening! unbiased and with an open mind.
the 'pulling' only refers to the taking down of building 6 btw.
MIGHTYcbu 1 year ago
#5 burned longer and allot more then any yet never fell , Wake up
Headshothorror4488 1 year ago
So they where "pulling" only the parts that remain on the outside rim of a deep deep hole that should NOT be there.
danp5648 1 year ago
building 6 was hollowed out with the deepest depression out of all the WTC towers. A top view of the WTC shows a deep black hole where a building should be. The outer shell remained standing or 4 steel buildings would have "fell"?!. Who was in building 6 anyway and where are they today?
danp5648 1 year ago
funny how the only 3 steel framed buildings to ever collapse due to fire were owned or leased by silverstein and people still dismiss why there were molten metal under all 3 of the towers for weeks after 911
wombweasel222 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
from: thefreedictionaryDOTcom/pull+down pull down:
1. To demolish; destroy: pull down an old office building.
from: diclib.com Collins COBUILD Advanced Learner's English Dictionary 4th edition: To pull down a building or statue means to deliberately destroy it.
from: websters-online-dictionaryDOTorg pull: 4: [Verb] To demolish; to subvert; to destroy. In political affairs, as well as mechanical. from princetonDOTedu# tear down so as to make flat with the ground.
Dawgtha 1 year ago
Does anyone see any cables???
danp5648 1 year ago
If i was being accuse of murdering 20 ppl in a strip club with a AK47, and i can prove my innocents byjut showing video surveillance footage of me being in a fast food store... That'd be the FIRST thing i will do, show that footage to proove my innocents...and that will show that im not guilty and thats the end of that.
The fact that they hold back such VITAL evidence is just one of the things that fuels the 911Truth movement. ALL the Governmennt have to do is show that ONE piece of evidence!!!
o0PursueTheTruth0o 1 year ago
One of them main evidence is the surveillance tapes around the pentagon which shows the plane crashing into the pentagon. If the US government wanted to end all these theories alltogether within a matter of minutes, all they have to do is show ONE of the tapes they siezed on 911. That will blow the 911 truthers movement right outa the water as well as provin the US governments innocents..Its been 9 years and they still havnt, all it takes is 20 secs of video footage..what have they got to hide?
o0PursueTheTruth0o 1 year ago
@o0PursueTheTruth0o They DID show evidence from the surveillance camera that had a perfect view of the impact site.
TyVulpine 1 year ago
@TyVulpine of a plance crashing into the pentagon? if so pls tell me where so i can see it to.
o0PursueTheTruth0o 1 year ago
Fires and debris simply do not collapse structures like Tower 7. It fell with ZERO resistance and perfectly into its own motherfucking footprint!!! It fell like this because of a few office fires and a hole in the SW corner a few stories up?...
DO THESE PEOPLE THINK I AM FUCKING DOWN SYNDROMED?
Apparently they do...
AllahConsciousness 1 year ago
@AllahConsciousness It fell at an angle not straight down (as CTs would have you believe.)
TyVulpine 1 year ago
@TyVulpine I saw the footage for myself so I know you are either lying or have never bothered to watch Tower 7 collapse.
AllahConsciousness 1 year ago
@AllahConsciousness The video footage is misleading. It only shows a portion of the collapse, from the upper floors.
TyVulpine 1 year ago
@TyVulpine Interesting idea you've got there. Can you direct me to any more complete footage of the collapse? Also, I have never been able to acquire a good picture of the alleged hole in the SW corner. I'm very open minded an will admit I am wrong if I see something even remotely convincing that Tower 7 fell from the hole caused by the debris.
AllahConsciousness 1 year ago
@AllahConsciousness I have a video shot by a news crew that shows very clearly that Building 7's SW corner WAS NOT caved in or fractured like many have said. The crew was on the ground after most of the people had left and just a couple hours before WTC 7 collapsed. It's the clearest video I've seen and because there are few people around, it allows you to see just what kind of shape the building was in. Strangely, alternating floors appear to have been blown out neatly while others remain.
ConspiracyForTruth 1 year ago
@ConspiracyForTruth How dare you claim that there could be corrupt elite with the gaul to commit mass murder for money and power! You live in some alternate universe where the elite don't absolutely love us masses and want to provide us with hip Apple products to consume and really badass police state measures to protect us from brown people overseas who are jealous of our super sexy lifestyle! You are one hell of a big-foot hunting conspiratorial moran sir...
AllahConsciousness 1 year ago
Are you going to believe me or are you going to believe your lying eyes?
MrHalified 1 year ago
He might have meant the workmen had to be careful they didnt burn their boots or feet on the intensely hot metal they all reported there for weeks afterwards.
zenoist2 2 years ago
0:16- 0:29 why did he have to be careful? why not just fly another plane into building 6 to bring it down onto it's footprint? worked wonders for two 100+ storey buildings... 3rd times a charm.
realistromeo 2 years ago
lies, pathetic.
Thorwulf18 2 years ago
It wouldn't have mattered if Silverstein had said "Fuck it!" It's obvious that the building was demolished with explosives.
"Pulled with cables..."
Ridiculous.
GentileAgainstWar 2 years ago
It takes weeks to place explosives at the correct point to make a building (planned for demolition) to be brought down into itself. Was this just a fluke that on 9/11 they were planning to "pull it" bring down this OTHER building?
It is TOO much to believe that this happened on the same day without having a plane hit it?!
CONTROLLED DEMOLITION brought down WTCs as it was just too perfect in the way they imploded into the dust!
LucidDreamer92 3 years ago
I love the fact that WTC 6 looks the way it does in this video and is still standing. It's quite hilarious compared to WTC 7.
gtg309v 3 years ago
Care to explaint this?
Denierbud11 3 years ago
Umm, nah.
gtg309v 3 years ago
What is more than quite hilarious is the shit that is spewed by moron CTists on Youtube. You want to try to spew your shit on a real forum, google JREF and come onto the conspiracy theory forum there. Bring your best shit, you will need it.
okedoke1234 3 years ago
How is it that I am a conspiracy theorist and you are not? Do you know what a conspiracy is? You have a theory which involves a conspiracy in the plot just like "CTists" as you call them.
Maybe this video will help you understand.
watch?v=3lwBUXCMdSc
And until your type starts debating with facts, instead of insults or labels that end any conversation, I don't have anything to say to you. Hopefully those forums aren't more of the same that you have shown here.
gtg309v 3 years ago
We have fact after fact after fact which are summarily dismissed by truthers. Now you know why we are a little pissed off. I for one am tired of the disinformation being spewed by truthers and will go out of my way to ensure the facts are straight about 9/11.
okedoke1234 3 years ago
I don't recall dismissing any facts. But you continue to try and label people so you think I already did something when you don't know anything about me. So the discussion is over before it started, later.
gtg309v 3 years ago
*perses lips* I lerve ya 2 MWAH x
pklfsh 3 years ago
well buddy u may not have met me in person but u sure do like talking with me.. MWAH xx
pklfsh 3 years ago
lol no, I just like showing what an idiot IJCTs like you are.
TyVulpine 3 years ago
welll... mebe thats yer 'thang'....
pklfsh 3 years ago
*Shakes head* You just don't know when to quit, do you? Idiot...
TyVulpine 3 years ago
The popular mechanics article cannot be trusted. the mag is owned by hearst which donates to the republican party. FACT.
vlunney 3 years ago
he took the decision to 'pull' 'pull it' and then he said.. "And then we watched the building collapse" AND HE SAID THOSE WORDS ALL LINKED UP AND IN ONE SENTENCE! so..if i 'pulled' my toy building blocks and then watched them all collapse..that means...?? DUH! ITS A NO BRAINER! Dont listen to the people who want to play on words its OBVIOUS this guy is a criminal!
pklfsh 3 years ago
Larry Silverstein DIDN'T HAVE THE AUTHORITY to order that the building be demo'd for any reason. "Pull it" meant pull the firefighting operation, and let the building burn, because he didn't want to risk any more fire fighters. Seriously, how many died when Building Seven collapsed? NONE, right? Because they stopped, per the "pull it" order. But, somehow, you were in that room when he said it, and know EXACTLY what he meant, huh?
TyVulpine 3 years ago
u r one dumb fuck dum ass - silverstein gave an interview and told the interviewer EXACTLEY the words i wrote above SO yeah u could say i was in the room! as were thousands of others who watched his interview -- the dumb fuck building came down on its own foot print in a matter of seconds so go take your dumb ass replies to somewhere else cos everyone intelligent KNOWS [ apart from your dumb ass] that it was an effing insurance scam as well as an INSIDE JOB - ASSHOLE!!!
pklfsh 3 years ago
*YAWN* Yet another IJCT dumbass idiot that has ZERO proof to back up his/her big mouth. Still waiting for that irrefutable proof that you IJCTs seem to have but refuse to show. Oh, wait. That's right. IT GOT DEBUNKED JUST LIKE ALL YOUR CLAIMS!
TyVulpine 3 years ago
GO FUK YOURSELF U DUMB BRAIN ASSHOLE and then get in line fer ya microchip!
pklfsh 3 years ago
Oh, yeah THAT was real mature and a real good comeback. I'd believe and respect the IJCTs viewpoints and claims, IF THEY'D ACTUALLY BACK UP THEIR CLAIMS WITH REAL EVIDENCE, but so far, NOT ONE here on YouTube has. They'd rather bash/insult skeptics or beat about the bush about giving their evidence. Don't bother replying unless you have actual evidence to back up your big mouth, not lame insults.
TyVulpine 3 years ago
As i said ' go fuk yerself u dumbAss!'
pklfsh 3 years ago
Next lame excuse, please. Or maybe actually present some evidence? Nah, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for an IJCT to actually present any REAL evidence. They prefer to just throw out THEORIES, but prefer to NEVER actually try to prove them.
TyVulpine 3 years ago
Mannnnn... if u had an ounce of a brain cell u would be I.N.C.R.E.D.I.B.L.Y dangerous!
pklfsh 3 years ago
LAME. Seriously, give it up. You're not exactly helping your "The government did it!" case.
TyVulpine 3 years ago
who gives a fuk
pklfsh 3 years ago
Apparently, you do, since you keep replying.
TyVulpine 3 years ago
i know u loves me really...
pklfsh 3 years ago
Considering I've never even MET you, yet another lie by an IJCT. Typical IJCT lies.
TyVulpine 3 years ago
@TyVulpine "But, somehow, you were in that room when he said it, and know EXACTLY what he meant, huh?"
How you feel this wouldn't apply directly to you as well as entirely beyond me.
I am afraid of people who try so hard to debunk something that has left the world with so many questions. I can see the passion in wondering if something was an inside job, but the passion in debunking investigations?
Reeks of disinformation agents.
dopplesoldners 1 year ago
@dopplesoldners I know conspiracy theorists hate FACTS, but Silverman did NOT have the AUTHORITY to have the buildings demo'd, which is something CTs ignore because it conflicts with their "pull it" claims plus Silverman was referring to the firefighting operation. The NYFD just lost several hundred members when Towers 1 and 2 collapsed. He didn't want to risk anymore with Building 7.
TyVulpine 1 year ago
@TyVulpine The official 9/11 story is a conspiracy theory.
You need to stop using terms you do not know the definition of. Quite annoying, and I imagine embarrassing as well.
dopplesoldners 1 year ago
@TyVulpine From prisonplanet:
"Debunkers attempted to claim that Silverstein meant to pull the firefighters from the building due to the danger the structure was in, and this explanation was also later claimed by Silversteins spokesman, however, both the FEMA report, the New York Times and even Popular Mechanics reported that there were no firefighting actions taken inside WTC 7."
dopplesoldners 1 year ago
@dopplesoldners Call up the NYFD and ask if there were any firefighters in Building 7 on 9/11. I'm sure you'd be surprised at the "yes" you'll get in response. And I'm decline to believe an anonymous faceless person hiding behind a computer screen. Especially a conspiracy theorist as all never actually show evidence to support an inside job.
TyVulpine 1 year ago
@TyVulpine Yeah, I'd be surprised that people who knew of the controlled demolition beforehand would lie about it afterward. Are you fucking kidding me?
The zionist owned popular mechanics won't even admit to what you are admitting. You are worse than the illuminati itself. You are the useful idiot your government loves.
And, for about the tenth time on this video, you need to be reminded that the 9/11 "official story" is, by definition, a conspiracy theory.
GET OFF THAT PHRASE.
dopplesoldners 1 year ago
Thats fine. But if we''re right. Then it's your ass too.
ConspiracyRevolution 3 years ago
Considering you haven't given a SINGLE shred of evidence that HASN'T already been debunked (and even Loose Change was redone because of inaccuracies and things in the movie were debunked), I highly doubt that.
TyVulpine 3 years ago
The people you work for wont save you. They are killing your children and family too. If you follow orders that are illegal you are an accessory. You should wise up and tell your meathead bosses you wont stand for it.
CarComedy 3 years ago
That's a load of BS...
TyVulpine 3 years ago
Larry is going down with the NWO
ConspiracyRevolution 3 years ago
Here is the full "pulling down building 6" clip:
watch?v=1uxlrcQL5Dk
Bundy133T 3 years ago
I'd love for just ONE person to irrefutably give proof that Silverstein meant to demo Building 7. All the "Inside Job Conspiracy Theorists" CLAIM that's what he meant, yet they WEREN'T there when he said it, so how could they know what he meant? Besides, Silverstein did NOT have the authority to order the building to be imploded.
TyVulpine 4 years ago
Fair enough. But your own two eyes should tell you that that was a controlled demolition.
columbusclipper 3 years ago
My own two eyes tell me that there is no credible evidence to support a demo theory. My eyes tell me that I did not see any blasting caps or detonation wires in the rubble that would indicate a demo. My eyes tell me that the canines used in the WTC search/rescue did not respond to any aroma that explosives would have left. If there was a demo, where did the blasting caps/detonation wires go? All those people/firefighters around, and NO ONE saw any wires/caps? My eyes tell me all I need to know.
TyVulpine 3 years ago
Oh no? How about there being credible evidence to suggest that the demo theory is a possibility? Like, building 7's almost free-fall and almost symmetrical fall, like many structural engineers who have come out specifically with regard to building 7 (let's just talk about building 7 for now, OK?), like reports in France that building 7 collapsed BEFORE it actually collapsed? What's also suspicious is that the 9/11 commission didn't even examine what happened with that building. Come on, Ty.
columbusclipper 3 years ago
"Oh, no! It LOOKS like the building was demo'd and because it does, I refuse to accept any other possibility, even though absolutely NO evidence whatsoever was found by the construction crews removing the rubble!"
TyVulpine 3 years ago
Then again, IJCTs aren't known for their logic. They tend to throw it out the window.
TyVulpine 3 years ago
Grammar error on part. Let me correct it: "YOU'RE cracking, Ty, I can tell."
columbusclipper 3 years ago
Molten metal was found at the bottom of WTC 1, 2, and 7, which is evidence of thermite, an agent used in detonations. Structural engineers have come forward on this as well. You may be interested in what Stephen Jones has to say (he's on YouTube), who provides evidence that at least suggests a more detailed investigation into what happened that day is needed. But, no, you are not going to check it out. I can tell, because you are trying to remain a smart ass on the subject.
columbusclipper 3 years ago
Simply finding molten metal is NOT concrete proof of thermite. Where is the thermite itself? Oh, right. NONE was found. Not enough to conclusively support the demo theory, anyway.
TyVulpine 3 years ago
Your cracking, Ty, I can tell. Do your research.
columbusclipper 3 years ago
Well, so far, you've done everything BUT help your case that 9/11 was an inside job. And saying "I can tell" is inane. How can you look through your computer monitor and tell anything about someone you can't see? Yet another example of an IJCT throwing logic out the window.
TyVulpine 3 years ago
oh, shut up, dumb ass.
columbusclipper 3 years ago
Uh, no. I have a right to post my opinion, and if you don't agree with it, tough. And insulting people is NOT to convince them of your opinion. This is just another usual tactic that I've seen Inside Job Conspiracy Theorists use. "If I can't convince them with my lack of evidence, I'll insult them and curse at them. Yeah, that'll convince them!" [/sarcasm]
TyVulpine 3 years ago
I've sited three major pieces of evidence and referred you to Dr. Stephen Jones. There are tons of evidence out there and to say there are none is a complete lie. You are well deserving of insults, you dim-witted moron.
columbusclipper 3 years ago
Again, you really think insulting someone is going to convince them? Grow up already.
TyVulpine 3 years ago
I'm not trying to convince you anymore. I don't care what you think. I'm just verbally abusing you now, you stupid bastard.
columbusclipper 3 years ago
Good, keep showing everone your immaturity. Show everyone that you aren't worthing debating with, that you can't debate without having to resort to insults and curses. All you are doing is destroying your own credibility, and giving me a good laugh at your expense.
TyVulpine 3 years ago
everyone*
TyVulpine 3 years ago
Watch Loose Change. Watch Terrorstorm. Watch 9/11 in Plane site. Watch Martial Law. Go to Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. Go to Scholars for 9/11 Truth. Look up what Morgan Reynolds had to day about 9/11. Look up what ex Italian president head to say. Jesse Ventura gives some interesting commentary on the subject as well. Lots and lots and lots of evidence. Faulty evidence? Perhaps, perhaps not, but to say there is no evidence is a load of crap. Now do your homework and stop blabbering.
columbusclipper 3 years ago
Who's blabbering? Who's the one throwing lame insults and cussing? Who's the one destroying his own credibility because of said insults and cussing? Not me, not me, and again, not me. Funny, you tell me to go watch those videos, but again, you fail to provide any real proof YOURSELF that 9/11 was an inside job. Always point to everything else...
TyVulpine 3 years ago
Here's what you say in your profile: "I am rather skeptical about 9/11 being an "inside job" so don't bother sending any Conspiracy Theory videos. I won't bother watching them, and will just block you." So that's how you go around saying there is no evidence. You refuse to watch the videos. And you are talking about my credibility being shot to hell.
columbusclipper 3 years ago
Wow, talk about being clueless. I said no CONSPIRACY videos. Why do I refuse to watch those videos? Because they offer NO evidence. All CT videos do is ask questions, then it actually doesn't bother to try to answer them. All a CT video is is a "Why this? Why that? I'll raise questions, but I won't bother trying answer my own questions" load of BS. CT videos actually offer very little concrete proof, and are nothing more than the opinion of the producer.
TyVulpine 3 years ago
How do you know they offer no evidence if you don't watch them? Jeez. There's no use talking to you, for you won't open your mind wide enough to understand where I am coming from. You need to watch Loose Change on Google video. If you don't, I'm not talking to you because you are just full of hot, empty air.
columbusclipper 3 years ago
Loose Change has been debunked so many times, even the PRODUCER admits that it was wrong and has changed the movie no less than THREE times, but of course, that's something you seem to neglect to mention.
TyVulpine 3 years ago
So...have you watched the film? Didn't think so. Good bye. AND QUIT USING ALL CAPS.
columbusclipper 3 years ago
Mr. Pot, meet Mr. Kettle... You apparently just don't want to admit that you have FAILED to convince me. So, first you insult and cuss at me, then you try to use debunked films, and when that failed, you tried to blame me.
TyVulpine 3 years ago
I've failed to convince you because you refuse to watch anything I suggest. Your mind is closed. I lost before the game ever started. Let me guess: you think the war in Iraq is a good thing, that Bush gives a rat's ass about "homeland security, and that this war has nothing to do with oil and everything to do with Al Qaeda.
columbusclipper 3 years ago
No, yes, and sort of.
TyVulpine 3 years ago
Go watch "Buried 60 Minutes Interview" on YouTube.
columbusclipper 3 years ago
Osama Bin Laden was a known CIA asset. Google "Tim Osmond". Then Google operation "Northwoods" - this documents similiar plans to instigate a war with cuba using remote control plans. Then google "Projoect for a new american century" a.k.a. "PNAC" which states that american needs a terrorist attack to cary out certain plans. BTW the authors of PNAC are dick cheney, Rumsfeld and a few other names you'll recognize.
ConspiracyRevolution 3 years ago
Blah blah blah...heard it before...don't give a shit...doesn't prove shit...
TyVulpine 3 years ago
man thats a really good come back, so it looks to me like you dont care what any ones says or tell u to research, you just beleive the government, do you think the Gov has ever lied?
I just think its mad that a fire brought it down, you see u can can do this experiment your self.. put a normal butter knife ion a fire and it wont melt, leave it there for hours and even use petrol to make the fire burn better, use wood and coal, and still you wont get that thin knife to melt. thats all im saying
TheeBaker 3 years ago
I know the government lies, BUT I also know that the government isn't stupid enough to do something like 9/11. And yes, I *HAVE* done my research, and guess what? I didn't a single piece of evidence that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the government, or the fairy-tale Illuminati or anyone else besides al-Qaeda/bin Laden was behind the attacks, nor do I exactly see YOU giving any evidence. Like all typical IJCTs, you avoid actually doing so, because you HAVE NONE.
TyVulpine 3 years ago
the were realy fast to plant the devices when they saw they cant handle thefire and pulled it lol
MAGCHUS888 4 years ago
the were realy fast to plant the devices when they saw they cant handle thefire and pulled it lol
MAGCHUS888 4 years ago
You see it was not structuraly unsound (WTC7) the firefighters still wanted to go in and fight the fires, but due to the UNCONTROLABLE (lol) fires they pulled their opperation and it remarkably fell. WOW! so it was not structuraly unsound to enter at all... merely burning uncontrolably (lol)
realistromeo 4 years ago
Silverstein and 9/11 look at his name and its all there for the future wars against innumberable muslims all over the planet.
DarkWolfen 4 years ago
How many moron CTists have actually READ Silverstein's entire quote?? It's QUIZ TIME! According to Silverstein's quote, WHO made the decision to "pull it"?
1. He (Silverstein) did
2. The FDNY
Careful CTists, the answer is not what you were led to believe when you joined the lunatic CTist club!
okedoke1234 4 years ago
well to be honest i dont think silverstein knew much about demolitions. When they say "pull it" it means just that. the building is pulled down with cables. Would be obvious if there were cables on bldg7. If silverstein was part of consp. He would not be trusted with rebuilding and would be in jail
Obelisk2290 4 years ago
THEY.. hey I win.. but anyways what you official story people like to ignore is the firefighters had NO ONE to rescue in building 7 (evacuation of the building started BEFORE the second tower was hit.)
They werent fighting the fires in WTC 7 they didnt have enough water mains.(a few were destroyed in the surrounding area). They called off firefighting missions by 1130..
So WHO are they pulling?
JusticePetitioner 4 years ago
The fire department never asks the property owner before they pull out. "Where having a bit of trouble down here Larry & even though you know nothing about fires, except that your going to make a fortune off your recently acquired insurance policy, would you like us to risk our lives or can we get out now""Oh OK, you can pull out now""Thanks Lazza, I'll just go tell the BBC that its collapsed, cause I'm sure it will by the end of the call":)
flavour54 4 years ago
The Millenium Hilton Hotel just next to the Twin Towers remained standing. I don't see the logic behind the collapse of the WTC 7 Tower, unless its fall has been assisted by controlled destructive means.
areawtc 4 years ago
lol assisted by controlled destructive means...i love the fancy language you people use to prove your point
so retarded
cschin11 4 years ago
areawtc is correct though :P
Threepwood23 4 years ago
areawtc is correct about what? WTC7 had a 20-story tall hole ripped into it, an unfought-fire for 7 hours, and was reported as "leaning, creaking and groaning" before it collapsed. Numerous on-site Fire Chiefs with decades of experience decided to pull their firefighters out because they thought it would collapse.
okedoke1234 4 years ago
It must of collapsed by bombs being placed inside.
Threepwood23 4 years ago
the first 10 floors of bldg 7were scooped of by the falling debris. Bldg7 was unique. The first 10 floors were empty since it staraddled a power station and hosed 10 diesel tanks. the lines were destroyed and the place burned on for over 6 hours before collapse and the firemen predicted it
Obelisk2290 4 years ago
I'm sure wtc 7 WAS hit by parts of the towers but it does not explain the fires. Other buildings in the area had much more damage than wtc 7 but had no fires. How could 7 be the only surrounding building with fire on limited floors and have complete structural failure in only 8 hrs? It was deliberately demolished by planted explosives.
savageUSA 4 years ago
Anybody who views this clip and still says there's nothing suspicious about WTC 7 is a shill lying for some people or other.
yktube 4 years ago
9/11 = INSIDE JOB!
Small fires cannot make a building collapse perfectly symmetrical in on itselt. The damage on the south wall would've also made the building topple toward the south..not straight down. Also fires do not create demolition squibs going from bottom to up on the right side of the building.
GlobalBroadcast 4 years ago
lol, woops, way to go silverstein
bootnitus 4 years ago
What makes you an expert PoetryHound? You only have a reference posted for a couple of your assertions. You should practice what you preach and back your stuff up too. Get off your soap box.
BigTy456 4 years ago
timeforchange2007.blogspot
I will change things! THEY HAVE GONE TOO FAR!!!
begotka2007 4 years ago
yeah i bet you will....
cschin11 4 years ago
Several of the "hijackers" are still alive. And the presence of terrorists was known in mid-2000 but the White House specifically prevented the FBI agents on the case from pursuing them. You're one of the people that allowed Hitler to come to power, by not realizing what was going on until it was too late.
DanielMurphy007 4 years ago
"Several of the "hijackers" are still alive"
Nope, they're not.
"the White House specifically prevented the FBI agents on the case from pursuing them."
That's incorrect. Looks like you're just going down the usual CTer list of baseless assertions & misinterpretations. By any chance, do you have ADD? Unable to focus on any one topic at a time?
PoetryHound 4 years ago
gee how many John Smiths are out there? Or Mary Ann?
Or Michael Jordan. Names dont mean shit. Unless you have a name like Pixy McHead or something.
How many Muhammed Ali names are out there, or just Muhammed Husseins? Just because there are people out there with the same name as the hijackers doesnt mean its all fake.
Bundy133T 4 years ago
watch?v=k3DRhwRN06I Are there any people in the demo industry willing to go on record saying that this was definitely or probably not deliberate demolition?
DanielMurphy007 4 years ago
"Are there any people in the demo industry willing to go on record saying that this was definitely or probably not deliberate demolition?"
Yes, Brent Blanchard's in his Implosion World article. Others couldn't be bothered with what they probably consider a waste of time.
PoetryHound 4 years ago
And what was Blanchard's explanation for collapse, which he figured out even though every other person asked said it was CD?
DanielMurphy007 4 years ago
"And what was Blanchard's explanation for collapse?"
Google him and find his Implosion World article and read it for yourself.
"Every other person asked said it was CD"
No they didn't.
PoetryHound 4 years ago
And communists burned down the Reichstagg, and Oswald was a lone shooter, and Israel didn't attack the USS Liberty, and FDR didn't let Pearl Harbor happen, and we didn't send the Lusitania into German waters on purpose, and we didn't stage the Gulf of Tonkin incident, and the FBI didn't give the terrorists the bomb in first wtc attack....
DanielMurphy007 4 years ago
Yep, there have been false flag operations and deceptions by governments throughout history. Doesn't mean 911 was one.
PoetryHound 4 years ago
Even though it has all the characteristics of it? Like someone to blame it on without evidence, government secrecy, the inexplainable failure of NORAD, using it as an excuse to get into wars, and a commission that ignores significant evidence and unexplained occurrences.
DanielMurphy007 4 years ago
"Even though it has all the characteristics of it?"
I has none of the characteristics except ones invented by conspiracy theorists. "Inexplainable failure of NORAD?" Why haven't you read the NORAD & FAA transcripts or the descriptions of the miscommunications? Which evidence did the 911 Commission ignore? (Remember that they were not engineers. FEMA & NIST handled engineering issues). You're right that 911 was indeed used as an excuse to get into war.
PoetryHound 4 years ago
NORAD doesn't need the FAA for anything. It is standard to scramble fighters to check it out when a plane goes off course. The pentagon hit by a plane? The commission ignored building 7, and the eyewitness reports of explosions, and the reports of "engineers" going into the buildings before the attacks during a power-down which is unprecedented, the "hijackers" were not good pilots. Several members of the commission have come out saying that it was a whitewash.
DanielMurphy007 4 years ago
"NORAD doesn't need the FAA for anything."
Correct but irrelevant.
"It is standard to scramble fighters to check it out when a plane goes off course. "
Incorrect.
"The commission ignored building 7,"
& 3,4,5, & 6 too. Not their job to look into those.
"eyewitness reports of explosions"
Lots of things cause explosions & things that sound like explosions.
PoetryHound 4 years ago
"power-down"
That was reported by one guy, who also said the power-down was only in 1 of the towers & only in 1/2 of that one, & it only lasted 26 hours, not nearly enough time to rig a building for demolition.
"the "hijackers" were not good pilots."
Correct, but they could steer the planes into buildings.
"Several members of the commission have come out saying that it was a whitewash."
No they haven't. They complained of bad cooperation from the White House.
PoetryHound 4 years ago
antiwar com/article php?articleid=9502
harpers org/WhitewashAsPublicService html
Regarding the 9/11 Commission "It is a national scandal." - Max Cleland, of the 911 commission.
For more: patriotsquestion911 com
DanielMurphy007 4 years ago
Max Cleland said that early on with respect to the noncooperation from the White House, & I agree with him. But that's very different from claiming there was a government "inside job" or exposives pre-planted in the towers. Cleland never said anything about that.
PoetryHound 4 years ago
I didn't say Cleland said that either, I said the commission report is for blowing your nose on.
"Hijack 'suspects' alive and well" news*bbc*co* uk/2/hi/middle_east/1559151 stm
DanielMurphy007 4 years ago
"the commission report is for blowing your nose on."
I think it didn't go far enough in detail on some things & didn't assign blame strongly enough. But it's a useful report in terms of identifying the miscommunications & lack of preparedness, & how to rectify them.
The BBC admitted they made a mistake. It was based on mistaken identity. And the people whose identities were stolen are still alive, the hijackers are not.
PoetryHound 4 years ago
WhyAskQuestions, all of your questions are dishonest. I now know this. And I am going to be here forever to let everyone know about you and your wicked lies. You have shown yourself to be a lying scum. It has been proven that you are pure evil.
IP address of WhyAskQuestions 207.255.52.148 to turn over to law enforcement when the TRUTH of 9/11 comes out and we HUNT DOWN AND EXECUTE THE PERPETRATORS AND THE SHILLS INVOLVED IN THE COVERUP.
sunwestmovies 4 years ago
Duh, WHERE'S THE EVIDENCE 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB?
I CAN'T SEE ANY.
EVEN IF YOU SHOW IT TO ME.
I ONLY SUPPORT THE FAITH-BASED OFFICIAL CONSPIRACY THEORY, LIKE SOME KIND OF RETARD.
WHYASKQUESTIONS, ANYWAY?
WAQoWAQjob 4 years ago
Too bad for you that sarcasm doesn't make you right. The CTers constantly claim there's tons of evidence of an "inside job" or the use of explosives, but they never present any. So what's the evidence? Not assertions. Not speculation. Not questions. Evidence.
PoetryHound 4 years ago
An obvious demolition.
conquesimo 4 years ago
poetry hound is likely hasbara. he sure knows a lot and mixes it up well, always with the same monotonous message: all is well and nothing happened. it is like revisionist history.
Joeey 4 years ago
You have no way on earth of knowing that! There was but maybe not anymore.
Fire man IT must have been there hey.
0ddba11s 4 years ago
hello, I am an engineering student and I'm working on a building demolition project. Can u tell me where I can find similar videos to download. thx and great video by the way. RIP for the 9/11 victims. PEACE
berytus 4 years ago
Forget puting the fire out jus 'pull' it innit u twat larry silverstein!! u are all mass killers of your pple - sick cunts !!! and then covered it up. lies after lies and everyone is gona get caught out and bumed!!!
AMERSIDD 5 years ago
Google "Flight Termination System" without quotes.
PoetryHoundisashill 5 years ago
About half of the $861 million went to pay bondholders who held the original debt on the old WTC 7. The remaining amount went into rebuilding WTC 7 and it wasn't enough. NY City sold $400 million in Liberty Bonds to cover the rest. $7.2 is wrong. The max payout on WTC 1,2,5, & 6 is $4.6 billion, all of it (if it is ever collected) going toward the total rebuilding cost of $9 billion. Silverstein isn't profiting on the insurance.
PoetryHound 5 years ago
PoetryHound, are you trying to decieve people? Maybe you weren't aware? He is expected to recieve $3.345 billion in Liberty Bonds for the rest of the complex. Which brings it to a total of around $9 billion he will recieve for the complex. He isn't losing money either. He is only rebuilding one skyscraper, not two.
itchyandscratchy 5 years ago
The Liberty bonds aren't cash. They are a form of debt. He has to pay the bondholders back plus interest. He rebuilt WTC 7 and will be building 3 more buildings. He hasn't been able to fill up WTC 7 with tenants so that's lost revenue. He may end up okay, but there's no way 911 was an insurance scam.
PoetryHound 5 years ago
Come on guys 911 was to start a war in 2 countrys for oil don't forget this, any money and insurance scam is just the cream on the cake!
0ddba11s 4 years ago
There was no insurance scam. I've already explained that the insurance payouts have gone to rebuilding, not to Silverstin's "profit." So if you have evidence to the contrary, present it.
PoetryHound 4 years ago
Yes I have seen these convenient comments posted around the web since 911 but I will stick to what I have said thanks!
As I have said if there was an insurance scam that is just the cream on the cake!
0ddba11s 4 years ago
The comments have nothing to do with being "convenient." They have to do with being true. If you have counter-evidence that "pull" really is used in the demo industry to mean "blow up," then present it.
PoetryHound 4 years ago
IF is the active word!
If there was an insurance scam I have not said there was as I have no proof.
0ddba11s 4 years ago
The collective name for a team of firemen is not "IT".
0ddba11s 4 years ago
Pull the operation or pull the plug on the operation. There is no one in the demo industry that says "pull" means blow up. No one.
PoetryHound 4 years ago
youtube com/watch?v=FNEoiOP76QQ, yes pull is the industry term.
The owners of the WTC were going to have to spend billions cleaning out the asbestos and restoring the buildings. The WTC complex is some of the most expensive real estate in the world, and now they don't have to pay for the removal of the old buildings, and the insurance pays for the new ones.
DanielMurphy007 4 years ago
"yes pull is the industry term."
Indeed, but it is an industry term for literally pulling a structure over with steel cables, not blowing it up.
Asbestos was only installed up to the 38th floor in WTC 1. Much of it was later removed and the rest was sealed. So there was no problem or cost. Meanwhile, no asbestos was installed in WTC 2, so how could that have been a motivation for destroying that building? Makes no sense.
PoetryHound 4 years ago
Why is Larry talking about pulling down building 7 with cables?
DanielMurphy007 4 years ago
He wasn't. Since "pull" in demolition parlance refers to the use of cables, and since no cables were used on WTC 7, then we know Silverstein was not using "pull" in demo parlance. There are some other definitions of "pull," you know.
PoetryHound 4 years ago
So "maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it" means what? "They made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse" means what?
A building cannot fall as if there nothing stopping it, unless nothing is holding it up. How many eyewitnesses, firefighters, employees in the towers need to say "there were bombs going off?" Three buildings fall symmetrically due to fire, even though that's never happened ever before? NORAD stands down? 4 Hijackers vs. a plane full of people?
DanielMurphy007 4 years ago
Let's look at Silverstein's full sentence. "We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it." Let's use some logic. Was Silverstein saying, "We've had such terrible loss of life that it would be wise to blow up my building," or was he saying, "We've had such terrible loss of life that it would be wise to withdraw firefighters to prevent further loss of life"? Now, which statement makes sense, and which is completely absurd?
PoetryHound 4 years ago
Now let's look at the next part of the Silverstein quote. "They made the decision to pull." He doesn't say "I" made the decision or "We" made the decision. He says "They." Who is "they?" The FDNY? So if you really insist that "pull" means "blow up," then you're claiming they (the FDNY) made the decision to pull (blow up) WTC 7. If so, that would mean the FDNY is covering up a conspiracy that included the murder of 343 of their own men. And that's ridiculous.
PoetryHound 4 years ago